It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

What is your point, b.j?

You're saying the same object is acting on itself. I'm seeing if it's true.

We all know you think that the Moon is like a rocket (lol!) so I doubt it'll be a good one, but get to it anyway.

The moon is nothing like a rocket, except for the fact it moves through vacuum, which your logic has said is impossible. Do you stand by that?

If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!), then here is a simple experiment you can all do at home to prove or disprove it.

Not an analogy, mind, but a genuine experiment.

1: Stand up.

2: Reach down & grasp yourself by the feet with your hands.

3: Pull upwards.

End of experiment.

That's like loading a gun and expecting recoil before you fire it. Just admit you don't have any examples of newton's third law.

Now; if the result of your experiment was that you flew into the sky until you reached space, then congratulations! You have proved NASA's model of rocket propulsion correct.

If, however, you did not, then it looks like NASA are telling porkies...

I haven't tried it yet; maybe tomorrow if I get bored... Oooh! I wonder what SPACE will be like?!? All lovely & floaty & not-at-all-suspiciously heaven-like, with no dead bodies to bum me out... & all the happy, smiley, extra-special astronauts in the ISS will be up there too, throwing water around near vital electronics & never tripping over cables or getting minging filthy after a year without proper toilet facilities & doing super-duper-special space-science that will benefit all mankind eventually, but never quite yet...

& Chris Hadfield has a guitar!!!

I Can. Not. Wait... It will be ACE!














lol.

What is funny is how you ran away from your own pressure argument.

If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!)...

Except we keep telling you that the burning fuel and resultant gasses are not part of the rocket.  How many times do we have to explain before you finally get it?

I'm going to dumb it down for you:
The rocket and the fuel are the same entity until the valve opens and the gas flows out. The gas expands, pushing on the rocket. Ta-Da!

No, sokarul, that is an example of what happens if you try to create both forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object.

Like NASA claims their rockets do.

Did you try it btw? Are you now in space too?

Waging a space-war on space-science, like you do down here on Earthly science?

& I haven't run away from anything; that's what you lot all do when the subject of FREE EXPANSION OF GAS IN A VACUUM is raised... Cos what do NASA's rockets run on again? Oh - it's GAS isn't it!

Though you're probably all busy working feverishly on your denialist counter-arguments now; for the War On Science must continue at all costs!

Tell you what; why not just dig up the bodies of Joules & Thomson & give em a good kicking eh?

Newton too... though his body's probably spinning in its grave so fast now, after how badly you've all abused his laws, that it's burst into flames...

Meh; you're all a joke.

So therefore: LOL!!!!

P.s. markjo: do you not realise how utterly creepy & weird your last statement is? You're basically saying that, because you & your pals all keep repeatedly telling me something, I should accept it as being True.

This is why I do not like you. So knock it off, ok?

You can not provide any experiments or evidence to support your claims, while I have provided plenty; THAT is how I will determine what is TRUE, happy-fascist markjo - NOT merely on YOUR say-so.

But whatever; anyone else tried my experiment & is now in space? We could all have a space-party round the space-camp-fire, playing Chris Hadfield's guitar (lol!).

P.s. misero: No; in a vacuum the gas will expand, DOING NOTHING. If you do not like this fact, then take it up with Mr. Joules & Mr. Thomson.

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 21, 2015, 02:46:31 PM

If, as you & NASA claim, your model of rocketry works by both forces described by Newton's 3rd being created on the same object (i.e. the rocket 'pushing on itself' lol!)...

Except we keep telling you that the burning fuel and resultant gasses are not part of the rocket.  How many times do we have to explain before you finally get it?

If they're not part of the rocket then why burn them in the first place?

Let's try and make something clear to you. It'll fly above your head (pardon the pun) but it'll sort out what a real combustion chamber is and what the purpose of it is.

You see, this combustion chamber inside a rocket engine, is baloney. In a solid rocket, you can argue that it's a combustion chamber due to how the fuel burns.
A real combustion chamber in an engine would not work on a rocket but it would work very well in a car or truck as in burning to move pistons.
Pistons and such are no good for rockets, because the pistons in a car do actually emit exhaust fumes as the waste.
A rocket emits a huge burning mass out of it's arse end nozzle. Why?...because that's the propellant to make it work.
There's no internal combustion kicking the rocket up it's own arse and people should realise this without naively fighting it.
It's nonsense and would literally blow the rocket to smithereens in seconds if this was how they worked. Seriously, have a word for crying out loud.

Scepti, Papa, one question:

Is rocket exhaust physically part of the rocket?

You can answer with one letter Y or N. I'll wait.

No, sokarul, that is an example of what happens if you try to create both forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object.

Here. Imagine standing on a skateboard next to a wall. You push against the wall and it doesn't move, thus you go rolling away on your skateboard. Now imagine the wall is also on wheel. You push against it and what happens? You both move some. The force it was once able to apply isn't going to magically disappear. It's just less since the wall moves.
See "inertia" for further studies.

Understand yet? Of course you don't, you know nothing about physics.

Like NASA claims their rockets do.

Did you try it btw? Are you now in space too?

Waging a space-war on space-science, like you do down here on Earthly science?

& I haven't run away from anything; that's what you lot all do when the subject of FREE EXPANSION OF GAS IN A VACUUM is raised... Cos what do NASA's rockets run on again? Oh - it's GAS isn't it!

So if I have a 3000 psi gas cylinder and I open it in space, there is now no pressure inside the cylinder? No, there still is pressure, it just starts to escape.

Though you're probably all busy working feverishly on your denialist counter-arguments now; for the War On Science must continue at all costs!

Tell you what; why not just dig up the bodies of Joules & Thomson & give em a good kicking eh?

Newton too... though his body's probably spinning in its grave so fast now, after how badly you've all abused his laws, that it's burst into flames...

You just said his 3rd law doesn't make sense.
BTW I have seen his grave. I don't think he is spinning in it.

Meh; you're all a joke.

So therefore: LOL!!!!

P.s. markjo: do you not realise how utterly creepy & weird your last statement is? You're basically saying that, because you & your pals all keep repeatedly telling me something, I should accept it as being True.

This is why I do not like you. So knock it off, ok?

You can not provide any experiments or evidence to support your claims, while I have provided plenty; THAT is how I will determine what is TRUE, happy-fascist markjo - NOT merely on YOUR say-so.

But whatever; anyone else tried my experiment & is now in space? We could all have a space-party round the space-camp-fire, playing Chris Hadfield's guitar (lol!).

P.s. misero: No; in a vacuum the gas will expand, DOING NOTHING. If you do not like this fact, then take it up with Mr. Joules & Mr. Thomson.

Lol you are clueless. lol
lol  lol lol        lol  lol lol lolol   lol ololol   

lol lol
lol

I'm going to dumb it down for you:
The rocket and the fuel are the same entity until the valve opens and the gas flows out. The gas expands, pushing on the rocket. Ta-Da!

Yes the gas expands but it doesn't push on the rocket. the rocket's ignited gases pushing on the atmosphere below it and compressing it is what makes the rocket work.

All the rocket is doing is ejecting hot expanded gases against a dense atmosphere. If those gases expanded inside that rocket they would blow it to bits, immediately.

Scepti, Papa, one question:

Is rocket exhaust physically part of the rocket?

You can answer with one letter Y or N. I'll wait.

The rocket exhaust as you people mention it, is actually the whole reason the rocket works. As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.

As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.

Yes or no, Scepti. We all know the exhaust is what comes out of the rocket. May we conclude that means you agree it is not physically part of the rocket?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 21, 2015, 03:57:48 PM

As for it being PHYSICALLY part of the rocket, it's physically what the rocket spews out into the atmosphere which physically acts against it to enable the rocket to physically achieve vertical flight for a short while.

Yes or no, Scepti. We all know the exhaust is what comes out of the rocket. May we conclude that means you agree it is not physically part of the rocket?

You're game playing. I fail to see why you need to play games.
I've just answered your question but you want to twist it to make it look like the exhaust means nothing. Why would you do that unless you are desperate to hide something. Weird as hell.

You're game playing. I fail to see why you need to play games.
I've just answered your question but you want to twist it to make it look like the exhaust means nothing. Why would you do that unless you are desperate to hide something. Weird as hell.

I'm the one playing games when you wouldn't give a straight answer?

Oh, the exhaust means plenty. The speed at which it comes out of the rocket is what causes the rocket's motion. Conservation of momentum. Product of the mass and velocity of the rocket is conserved. At the beginning, the mass is the sum of the rocket and the fuel times velocity zero. At the end, the rocket is lighter, and there is mass coming out the back with a certain, high velocity.
So, the rocket must go at some speed in order to ensure that the sum of its mass time velocity, with the mass of the exhaust plus its velocity, is zero.

Just pointing out Papa's bootstraps analogy is meaningless (as he so often claims, despite the fact that the analogies we use are at least accurate on the point if comparison).

Sokarul: I did NOT say Newton's 3rd made no sense; I said NASA's interpretation of it in regard to rocket thrust made no sense.

Are you trolling or just stupid?

Also, learn about Free Expansion: once opened to a vacuum, the pressure in your gas cylinder would equalise with the vacuum asap, DOING NO WORK ON THE WAY.

& I seem to know a lot more about physics than YOU do; but then you are actively engaged in a war on science, so that's no surprise, is it?

Lastly; get a sense of humour.

Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?

Yes it does.

I know what you're trying to do here & it won't work; the rocket & it's exhaust are a single unit creating an ACTION.

What, then, does it REACT against?

Itself?

LOL!!!

Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.

Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?

Not really. More exhaust is created, but it's not the same exhaust.

Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.

You think humans are like rockets?

Ok, let's go back to basics. Conservation of momentum exists. True or false?

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 21, 2015, 04:07:52 PM

Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?

Not really. More exhaust is created, but it's not the same exhaust.

Quote

Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.

You think humans are like rockets?

Ok, let's go back to basics. Conservation of momentum exists. True or false?

That depends on how you're using that meaning.
Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.

Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.

m_r is the mass of the physical rocket, with no fuel in. v_r is the velocity of the rocket (unknown). m_f is the mass of the fuel. The fuel exhaust leaves the rocket with some velocity: we call that v_f.

Aside, for completeness' sake. Ignore if you want. Technically, it might be easier to define m_r to be the mass of the rocket and some amount of the fuel, and only be concerned with the fuel exhaust over a limited amount of time. The end result will be very much the same.

Conservation of momentum states that m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ where u is the initial velocity, v the final velocity.
We know that a rocket starts at rest, and that the fuel exhaust comes out from the rocket. We'll define the direction of the fuel to be negative: it can be positive if you want, this just makes it neater. All that matters is that the velocity is non-zero.
Now, it's just a matter of applying the formula:

0(m_r + m_f) = m_rv_r - m_fv_f

Clearly, the left hand side is zero, so:

m_rv_r =  m_fv_f

We know that fuel has some mass, and some (high) velocity, so the right hand side is not zero: so the left hand side cannot be zero. That is, the velocity of the rocket must exist.

I mean, if you want to be really technical it's closer to

(m_r+ (1-k)m_f)v_r =  km_fv_f

For some constant k between 0 and 1, determining how much of the fuel has been consumed, but still. The right hand side is still non-zero, so v_r must be as well. This holds in isolated, or approximately isolated, systems.

Sorry, bijane but what I proposed is a genuine experiment, to determine whether creating both the forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object will result in motion.

& they do not; ergo NASA's model for rocket thrust is wrong.

That you cannot understand this is unsurprising, as you & your gang have absolutely no reasoning powers whatsoever.

Neutral readers will be painfully aware of this by now, so do not imagine that you are in any way 'winning' here.

Frankly, your best bet would have been to just keep quiet & wait for me to go away; but your arrogance & intolerance would not allow you to do that, & now your credibility is completely shot to pieces.

& THAT is well & truly LOL!!!

Also, why are you spamming lots of equations now? Are you having a nervous breakdown or something?

Do you really not understand that conservation of momentum is meaningless without Newton's 3rd? & as I have already proved that NASA's model for rocket thrust violates Newton 3 then c.o.m is irrelevant.

There are no rockets in space; get over it & get on with your life.

Sorry, bijane but what I proposed is a genuine experiment, to determine whether creating both the forces described by Newton's 3rd on the same object will result in motion.

Exhaust is not part of the rocket. The end.

Also, why are you spamming lots of numbers now?

If you don't understand rather basic maths, I suggest you rethink making claims on this topic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 21, 2015, 04:15:06 PM

Let's see you explain it simply for your rocket.

m_r is the mass of the physical rocket, with no fuel in. v_r is the velocity of the rocket (unknown). m_f is the mass of the fuel. The fuel exhaust leaves the rocket with some velocity: we call that v_f.

Aside, for completeness' sake. Ignore if you want. Technically, it might be easier to define m_r to be the mass of the rocket and some amount of the fuel, and only be concerned with the fuel exhaust over a limited amount of time. The end result will be very much the same.

Conservation of momentum states that m₁u₁ + m₂u₂ = m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ where u is the initial velocity, v the final velocity.
We know that a rocket starts at rest, and that the fuel exhaust comes out from the rocket. We'll define the direction of the fuel to be negative: it can be positive if you want, this just makes it neater. All that matters is that the velocity is non-zero.
Now, it's just a matter of applying the formula:

0(m_r + m_f) = m_rv_r - m_fv_f

Clearly, the left hand side is zero, so:

m_rv_r =  m_fv_f

We know that fuel has some mass, and some (high) velocity, so the right hand side is not zero: so the left hand side cannot be zero. That is, the velocity of the rocket must exist.

I mean, if you want to be really technical it's closer to

(m_r+ (1-k)m_f)v_r =  km_fv_f

For some constant k between 0 and 1, determining how much of the fuel has been consumed, but still. The right hand side is still non-zero, so v_r must be as well. This holds in isolated, or approximately isolated, systems.

All those figures and equations you put. Gather them all up in your hand. Carefully cup them all like you would do with a recently caught butterfly from a cabbage leaf or flower, the carefully place them into a specially made case marked equations. Make sure you lock this case and only open it when someone wants you to show them the scatter gun of garbage.

In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.

No wonder your minds are so scrambled. I feel sorry for you people having to live by this absolute crap, I really do. It's as if you're trained to only answr like this.

Did you ever watch Armageddon, the film?
Do you remember the scene where they're all sat around the big table all reeling off potentials for stopping this rogue asteroid and some supposed tefal heads pipe up with mumbo jumbo, then Billy Bob Thornton who played truman shouts, " I need someone who hasn't had too much caffeine" and " come on guys we need to be realistic here."

You are the one on too much caffeine. I need you to tell it in basic form so that it's easy and simple to understand for anyone looking in.
Like Quincy said. " Blowing it up from the outside won't do the job." So what do we do?....."we drill."

We drill, Bi Jane. All I want you to do is drill. No fancy space walking stuff. No crazy astronaut rocket stuff. Just drill.

Ok, try again and tell me about this conservation of momentum as regards moving your rocket into the fluffy looking clouds and beyond. 

In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.

You're the self-proclaimed genius. Figure it out.

Sokarul: I did NOT say Newton's 3rd made no sense; I said NASA's interpretation of it in regard to rocket thrust made no sense.

Are you trolling or just stupid?

Also, learn about Free Expansion: once opened to a vacuum, the pressure in your gas cylinder would equalise with the vacuum asap, DOING NO WORK ON THE WAY.

Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.

& I seem to know a lot more about physics than YOU do; but then you are actively engaged in a war on science, so that's no surprise, is it?

No you don't.

Lastly; get a sense of humour.

lol lol lolololololololololololol

Bijane: does the exhaust column move with the rocket as it travels?

Yes it does.

I know what you're trying to do here & it won't work; the rocket & it's exhaust are a single unit creating an ACTION.

So how does the exhaust column push the rocket in the opposite direction?
You should draw a force diagram.

What, then, does it REACT against?


Itself?

LOL!!!

No, it's already reacted, it's just spent.

Try my above experiment (for that is what it is bijane; NOT an 'analogy') & see how the 'pushing on itself' nonsense works out in reality.

Did you try my skateboard experiment yet? Or are you going to keep ignoring it because you don't have a rebuttal?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 21, 2015, 04:46:13 PM

In the meantime, can you explain to me in simple terms what conservation of momentum would be in your rocket without using silly equations that mean nothing to anyone looking in who simply wants an easy analogy.

You're the self-proclaimed genius. Figure it out.

I'm only a genius because I can think on basic terms. I can see the simplicity in things without the need to bullshit people into believing things are more complicated than they need to be.

I also want to show people that reality is under their feet and just above the clouds. Fantasy is the space and space rockets that people like you expend great energy trying to push onto people and also trying to make sure people do not wake up to the reality.

I'm only a genius because I can think on basic terms. I can see the simplicity in things without the need to bullshit people into believing things are more complicated than they need to be.

If you can't udnerstand complexity, you're not a genius. That wasn't even remotely complicated maths.

A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.

There's the incredibly dumbed down version, with respect to launch. The same principle holds when in flight. You could involve frames of reference, or simply point out that the fuel in the rocket, and the rocket, necessarily move at the same rate: so when fuel exhaust is forced out, that would still exert a reactive force on the rocket.

Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.

I'm trying to pretend you never said this. 

Bijane: What the hell has the exhaust being part of the rocket or not got to do with my EXPERIMENT to prove NASA's model of rocket thrust (wherein both the action & reaction forces are claimed to be created on the same object) thoroughly & comprehensively wrong?

Are you drunk?

Really, b.j; there are no rockets in space. But never mind, because nobody really cares & ultimately nothing of value will be lost.

Just a few silly, escapist fantasies that were always unworthy of a truly mature sensibility anyway.

So pull yourself together & move on.

Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.

Oh - & LOL!!!

Bijane: What the hell has the exhaust being part of the rocket or not got to do with my EXPERIMENT to prove NASA's model of rocket thrust (wherein both the action & reaction forces are claimed to be created on the same object) thoroughly & comprehensively wrong?

Well, if the rocket exhaust is not the same object as the rocket, you've just explained why your nonsensical experiment isn't relevant. Pity, I thought your trolling was a little more imaginitive.

If you can't udnerstand complexity, you're not a genius. That wasn't even remotely complicated maths.

Don't ever be under the impression that crunching numbers and equations makes people geniuses. A genius is a person who can take complicated things and actually dumb them down to a level that anyone can understand.
The world is full of potential genius people. The problem is, they have been dumbed down by a lifetime of indoctrinated clap trap from the second they were old enough to actually absorb knowledge.

A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.

This is more like it. You see, it's as simple as that. the problem is, you seem scared to actually state what exactly does happen to make this rocket move. You simply mention rocket and fuel. We already know this. What we want to know, is how it works by your model. Explain what happens and why, for this rocket to move.
We've explained our side and you reject it, so explain your side.

There's the incredibly dumbed down version, with respect to launch. The same principle holds when in flight. You could involve frames of reference, or simply point out that the fuel in the rocket, and the rocket, necessarily move at the same rate: so when fuel exhaust is forced out, that would still exert a reactive force on the rocket.

Yes it's dumbed down. It's getting basic which is how it should be. All I need now is your dumbed down version of how a rocket works by explaining the fuel inside the rocket and what it does to propel it vertically into space.
Just explain it simply without bullshit equations.

Sokarul: stop trolling & learn about Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum.

Oh - & LOL!!!

Learn what a nozzle is.
Also
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 04:51:40 PM

Actually is provides a force, Newton agrees. Did you know you can run power tools of air compressors? And you say escaping gas does nothing.

I'm trying to pretend you never said this. 

So power tools run off of air compressors are fake?

Don't ever be under the impression that crunching numbers and equations makes people geniuses. A genius is a person who can take complicated things and actually dumb them down to a level that anyone can understand.

Sure, great. Except they also need to understand those things when they're complicated, in order to interpret. So, if you're a genius as you've claimed, try reading.

This is more like it. You see, it's as simple as that. the problem is, you seem scared to actually state what exactly does happen to make this rocket move. You simply mention rocket and fuel. We already know this. What we want to know, is how it works by your model. Explain what happens and why, for this rocket to move.
We've explained our side and you reject it, so explain your side.

What are you asking for? The details of the reaction that make the exhaust come out? Why is that relevant? You seem to just be wasting time. I don't think you can be asking for that, because it doesn't matter: we know the exhaust comes out of the rocket, by observation alone.
So, given that the moves out in one direction, I literally did just explain how it works. So, we're done.

If you forgot:

A pair of objects are stationary. If one moves, there must be an equal and opposite reaction on the other. In this case, those objects are rocket and fuel. They start off stationary: then the fuel exhaust is forced out, so thre must be an action in the opposite direction on the rocket.